Tom Homan Threatens Chicago Mayor Over Immigration Crackdown: ‘Get Out of the Way’

(CHICAGO) Tom Homan, President Trump’s “border czar,” has warned Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson to “get out of the way” as the administration prepares a sweeping immigration crackdown in the city and other sanctuary jurisdictions. In public comments on August 28–29, 2025, Homan said federal agents would “ramp up” enforcement in Chicago, Los Angeles, and additional cities where local leaders limit cooperation with federal immigration authorities.

The warning signals a sharp escalation in the face-off between the White House and local officials, with Chicago now a central test for how far federal authorities will go—and how far city and state leaders will push back—as late summer turns to fall.

Federal requests and deployments under consideration

Federal officials have moved on multiple fronts:

• They have asked to use Naval Station Great Lakes, the major military base just north of Chicago, as a staging ground for Department of Homeland Security operations tied to immigration enforcement.
• The administration has deployed National Guard troops to Washington, D.C., and Los Angeles for related efforts and is weighing a similar deployment to Chicago.
• City Council members and senior staff were briefed August 28 on the possibility of National Guard support in the region.

As of August 29, however:
– No final decision has been made on the base request.
– No official National Guard orders have been issued in Illinois.

Local leaders’ response

Mayor Brandon Johnson has strongly opposed the federal plan. He points to a major decline in violent crime in 2025 and warns that military involvement would deepen fear and strain already tense relations between communities and authorities.

Illinois Governor JB Pritzker is preparing to fight as well. He has said the state stands ready to sue if federal troops or agents are sent without local consent.

Chicago’s sanctuary policies:
– Limit local cooperation with federal immigration detainers.
– Restrict the role of city police in civil immigration matters.
These policies are now squarely in the administration’s crosshairs as it seeks to expand ICE operations in urban areas.

Federal rationale and strategy

The White House argues sanctuary policies:
– Undermine federal law.
– Risk public safety by releasing people from local custody who could face removal under federal immigration rules.

Tom Homan has framed the coming enforcement as an effort to restore order, saying federal teams will focus on places where local officials “do not cooperate” with Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

According to analysis by VisaVerge.com, the administration’s strategy includes:
– Pressuring or bypassing local limits by tapping federal resources.
– Using military logistical support where possible to move quickly across large metro areas like Chicago.

City leaders’ counterarguments and data

City leaders say the plan is political and likely to damage public safety by breaking trust with residents who need to report crimes and work with local police.

Key crime data cited by city officials:
– 573 homicides in 2024 — the highest total of any U.S. city that year.
– Violent crime dropped by more than 22% in the first half of 2025 compared to the same period in 2024 — the steepest decline in more than a decade.

Mayor Johnson argues that bringing in troops or staging federal operations at a naval base would:
– Send the wrong message at a delicate moment.
– Undermine neighborhood recovery and community–police rebuilding efforts.

Recent federal actions and controversial measures

The administration has used executive orders and other actions to widen ICE authority and limit local interference. Notable moves include:

• Changes related to “Remain in Mexico”, returning certain asylum seekers to wait abroad for U.S. court dates.
• A broader approach to “catch and release”, reducing releases into the U.S. with notices to appear.
• Stiffer penalties for failing to comply with removal orders.
• Large fines on those who do not self-deport — reports cite $6 billion in fines issued nationwide.
• Exploration of third-country deportation arrangements — transfers to Rwanda, South Sudan, and Eswatini — even when individuals have no direct ties to those countries.

Supporters say these steps are necessary to enforce the law. Critics view them as overreach that could endanger people and strain human rights commitments.

Community impact and local preparations

For Chicago families with mixed‑status households, large-scale enforcement brings practical fears:

• Everyday activities—school pick-ups, grocery runs, commutes—can become moments of worry if agents conduct home or workplace raids.
• Immigrant parents describe anxiety at early‑morning knocks; workers shift schedules or avoid clinics and services.

Local responses being organized:
– Legal aid groups preparing “know your rights” trainings and emergency hotlines.
– Faith leaders organizing safe spaces and rapid‑response teams.
– Community advocates holding press conferences, particularly in Black neighborhoods that have faced heavy policing and disinvestment, to oppose a military role and warn of potential flashpoints.

Federal playbook (as described by officials)

Officials briefed on the plan describe a step‑by‑step approach:

1. DHS identifies target cities based on sanctuary status and perceived non‑cooperation.
2. Agencies seek logistical support (for example, staging at military bases) to project speed and scale.
3. ICE teams deploy for coordinated operations, sometimes alongside National Guard or other federal law enforcement.
4. Local leaders are informed—often after teams are already in motion—and may respond with legal or political action.
5. Community organizations mount legal challenges, public demonstrations, and support services for affected residents.

Current status in Chicago remains fluid:
– Request to use Naval Station Great Lakes is under review.
– City Hall and Springfield are preparing legal responses.
– Pritzker has warned the state will sue if troops or federal agents deploy without local buy‑in.
– City officials note local police already work with federal partners on serious crimes while keeping civil immigration work separate.

Legal questions and constitutional issues

Legal scholars say using military bases and National Guard troops for domestic immigration enforcement raises constitutional questions and will likely draw court challenges. Key legal points:

• Federal immigration law is a national power, but states and cities retain control over local policing and can limit their officers’ role in civil immigration matters.
• Compelling local police to participate in immigration arrests would likely trigger litigation.
• For the National Guard, legal implications depend on:
  • Whether troops are under federal or state control.
  • The specific missions they receive.
  • How missions overlap with law enforcement duties.

What an immigration crackdown could look like on the ground

Practical risks for immigrants:
– More home and workplace raids.
– Increased detentions and use of expedited removals (fast‑track deportations).
– More frequent checks in neighborhoods with higher numbers of undocumented residents.
– Local jails becoming flashpoints if ICE seeks transfers or community arrests increase.

Preparedness measures by community groups:
– Rapid legal screenings to identify relief options.
– “Know your rights” sessions covering the right to remain silent and the right to an attorney.
– Community hotlines to report raids and connect families to attorneys and emergency childcare.
– Public demonstrations, press outreach, and coordination with aldermen to inform residents.

City officials emphasize continued services regardless of immigration status: access to schools, clinics, and emergency aid without immigration checks. Advocates warn that fear can deter people from seeking care or reporting crimes, potentially making cities less safe.

Impacts on employers and workers

A stepped‑up campaign could include more worksite checks, prompting concerns for employers and employees:

• Sectors with large workforces—food processing, logistics, construction, hospitality—are on alert for audits or unannounced visits.
• Worker advocates warn of potential retaliation and wage theft as fear rises.
• Employment lawyers advise:
  • Follow proper I‑9 procedures.
  • Avoid selective checks that risk violating anti‑discrimination laws.
  • Prepare a response plan for official requests.

Labor advocates expect a likely spike in wage disputes and urge firms to avoid discriminatory or panicked actions.

Political framing and competing narratives

Supporters of the federal approach emphasize the rule of law:
– Cities cannot selectively ignore federal laws.
– Sanctuary policies, they argue, allow people with removal orders to remain in the U.S.

Opponents stress civil rights and public‑safety consequences:
– They call the “war zone” characterization inaccurate and harmful, given the 2025 crime decline.
– They argue base staging and National Guard involvement are unnecessary shows of force that risk constitutional collisions and create fear.
– They warn third‑country deportations to Rwanda, South Sudan, or Eswatini raise moral and legal concerns.

Many civil rights groups are preparing litigation now, anticipating a complex legal battle if large federal operations roll out in Chicago.

Day‑to‑day effects on families and schools

Human stakes in neighborhoods where parents work long hours and children attend public schools:

• Parents may skip clinic appointments or stop going to work.
• Students bring stress into classrooms, affecting attendance and focus.
• Social workers and local groups are building safety plans and scripts for families to follow if phone calls go unanswered.

Community institutions (clinics, schools, churches) are increasing staff training to respond, provide plain‑language guidance, and avoid panic‑driven decisions that could harm families.

Next steps and what to watch

For now, the clock is ticking toward key decisions:

• As of August 29, the Great Lakes base request remains under review and no Illinois National Guard deployment orders have been issued.
• City Hall, the Governor’s Office, and civil rights groups are ready to act if federal teams move.
• Expect increased activity:
  • More briefings at City Hall.
  • More planning in Springfield.
  • Continued pressure from the White House.

The gap between federal and local goals remains wide. Chicago’s sanctuary policies are at the heart of a national clash over who decides how immigration laws are enforced on the ground. Whether the White House acts in Chicago — and whether courts allow those actions to stand — will shape daily life for thousands and set a precedent other cities will watch closely.

Key takeaway: The situation is evolving rapidly. Federal officials say the goal is to enforce the law and deter violations; local officials say the priority must be keeping neighborhoods safe and preserving trust.

For authoritative updates on enforcement policy and operations, readers can monitor announcements from U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Community organizations urge residents to rely on official notices and trusted local partners rather than social media rumors as events develop.

Practical tips for residents and families:
– Carry sealed copies of important documents.
– Have a trusted relative or friend listed for school pick‑up.
– Save contact details for reputable legal help.
– Remember rights during police or ICE encounters: the right to remain silent and the right to ask for an attorney.

Community meetings are filling up, legal hotlines are expanding, and residents across Chicago are weighing how to go about daily life while waiting to see what happens next. What remains unknown is how far federal authorities will go in Chicago—and how the city, the state, and the courts will answer.